Universal's Epic Universe Wish List & Speculation | Page 280 | Inside Universal Forums

Universal's Epic Universe Wish List & Speculation

  • Signing up for a Premium Membership is a donation to help Inside Universal maintain costs and offers an ad-free experience on the forum. Learn more about it here.
Status
Not open for further replies.
I really think building a park around IP based lands is just a mistake.

I agree, like why base a whole land on MARVEL characters? No one likes them and DC is the most popular!

Oh wait sorry we're not talking about the popular Islands of Adventure we're talking about Epic Universe, nevermind. /s

Sarcasm aside, maybe we shouldn't be determining which attractions we like based on third hand reporting and already burning this park four years before open?
 
I really think building a park around IP based lands is just a mistake. Maybe it's just me, but aside from WWoHP, no IP has even proven to me that it's even worth having a land. I just don't think IP lands work well.

Diagon works because it's supposed to be a shopping area in the books, but I feel like other lands like Cars Land, SWGE, SNW, etc look/feel like shopping malls with a ride or two rather than how lands used to be created with rides/shows around every corner and the occasional exit gift shop. And i'm not just talking MK or DL, USF was like this, too.

Pandora, TSL, and Avengers Campus doesn't either look like it takes the "shopping mall" approach, butnone of those lands are great, either. Pandora is the closest thing in that bunch, and it only has two rides, one which isa fine step up from Soarin, and another which is just a big WTF.

Idk, I feel like i've sort of lost track of my point and I started rambling a bit, but I just think that Universal will come to regret theming these lands so tightly to IPs, especially ones like HTTYD and Fantastic Beasts. HTTYD has never been as popular as some other Dreamworks properties here in the states and FB has sort of... never been all that popular. People only went to see the first one out of curiosity.

One issue is the world building process for certain IPs doesn't lead well into story building for a theme park. TSL fits that which is why it doesn't feel great.

Potter worked as an IP based land because it was fully thought out world with locations that were rich in content. The book had food and restaurants that could come to life easily. They had stores in which Universal/WB could replicate and create for the masses. The two were locations that even the characters went to relax and enjoy which made it easy for us to relax and enjoy.

Super Nintendo World works well as an IP based land because the world is a living arcade and you are truly just a character that was just added to the games. The games are so robust that even the merch fits. As for powerup bands, you can do all activities except one from what i was told which is the boss challenge.

Based on how robust Berk is with activities and things showcased in the plans and permits, I'm not seeing an issue with the land being outdated and not popular because it seems rich enough in story telling and worldbuilding.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Second Issue is not understanding why people enjoyed certain IPs or understanding the IP. (cough cough Fast and Furious)

While creatives may love certain IPs, they may not full understand an IP or why people enjoy it and then comes the question why certain locations.

An IP based in Star Wars in which the IP was consumed is mainly through films its important you highlight locations and things people loved about those locations and why. Disney did not do that which also impacted Batuu.

An IP like Pokemon which is so broad and consumed through games and media, theme parks and creatives have way more options when constructing a land/narrative as each game generation/spin off created new regions and pokemon.

Avengers Campus for me doesn't resonate because the location and the decisions they chose don't resonate in the things I enjoy from Marvel. Avengers has created the problem of having too many heroes that the lack of representation of certain heroes becomes a turn off.

Also understanding LOTR is part of the reason why LOTR would be an awful land. Any single location wouldn't have much to do because they would have to create so much backstory just to add a ride depending on location.
 
I agree, like why base a whole land on MARVEL characters? No one likes them and DC is the most popular!

Oh wait sorry we're not talking about the popular Islands of Adventure we're talking about Epic Universe, nevermind. /s

Sarcasm aside, maybe we shouldn't be determining which attractions we like based on third hand reporting and already burning this park four years before open?
I have no idea what happened to the post I had here, but anyway, I didn't even watch that video or whatever that people are talking about. I'm just giving my own opinion about *modern* IP lands, of which I actually don't consider MSHI like one.

MSHI is actually designed much more like an old-school land that i'd like to see a bit more of. An extremely varied land with four rides - two E's, one C and one B, all in a fairly small and compact area with two eateries and a few shops and meet and greets.
 
Epic Universe will be the first theme park (from Universal or Disney) to open with no original lands outside of the hub or "main street" section
 
One issue is the world building process for certain IPs doesn't lead well into story building for a theme park. TSL fits that which is why it doesn't feel great.

Potter worked as an IP based land because it was fully thought out world with locations that were rich in content. The book had food and restaurants that could come to life easily. They had stores in which Universal/WB could replicate and create for the masses. The two were locations that even the characters went to relax and enjoy which made it easy for us to relax and enjoy.

Super Nintendo World works well as an IP based land because the world is a living arcade and you are truly just a character that was just added to the games. The games are so robust that even the merch fits. As for powerup bands, you can do all activities except one from what i was told which is the boss challenge.

Based on how robust Berk is with activities and things showcased in the plans and permits, I'm not seeing an issue with the land being outdated and not popular because it seems rich enough in story telling and worldbuilding.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Second Issue is not understanding why people enjoyed certain IPs or understanding the IP. (cough cough Fast and Furious)

While creatives may love certain IPs, they may not full understand an IP or why people enjoy it and then comes the question why certain locations.

An IP based in Star Wars in which the IP was consumed is mainly through films its important you highlight locations and things people loved about those locations and why. Disney did not do that which also impacted Batuu.

An IP like Pokemon which is so broad and consumed through games and media, theme parks and creatives have way more options when constructing a land/narrative as each game generation/spin off created new regions and pokemon.

Avengers Campus for me doesn't resonate because the location and the decisions they chose don't resonate in the things I enjoy from Marvel. Avengers has created the problem of having too many heroes that the lack of representation of certain heroes becomes a turn off.

Also understanding LOTR is part of the reason why LOTR would be an awful land. Any single location wouldn't have much to do because they would have to create so much backstory just to add a ride depending on location.
The problem with any Avengers land is unless you are building Stark/Avengers tower and maybe something out of Wakanda or Asgard, the MCU doesn't really have any "Iconic" locations. It's sort of all over the place.

I agree LOTR would be tough to translate to a land because what's the ride?
 
I have no idea what happened to the post I had here, but anyway, I didn't even watch that video or whatever that people are talking about. I'm just giving my own opinion about *modern* IP lands, of which I actually don't consider MSHI like one.

MSHI is actually designed much more like an old-school land that i'd like to see a bit more of. An extremely varied land with four rides - two E's, one C and one B, all in a fairly small and compact area with two eateries and a few shops and meet and greets.

But Nintendo and Dragons will be of similar structure. Plus IOA had lands open with two rides (Toon); an e-ticket, a show, and a D-ticket walkthrough (Lost Continent); kids rides (Seuss), etc.

I'm suggesting we shouldn't jump to conclusions here when the park hasn't even gone vertical yet.

Epic Universe will be the first theme park (from Universal or Disney) to open with no original lands outside of the hub or "main street" section

Define "original".
 
I really think building a park around IP based lands is just a mistake. Maybe it's just me, but aside from WWoHP, no IP has even proven to me that it's even worth having a land. I just don't think IP lands work well.

Diagon works because it's supposed to be a shopping area in the books, but I feel like other lands like Cars Land, SWGE, SNW, etc look/feel like shopping malls with a ride or two rather than how lands used to be created with rides/shows around every corner and the occasional exit gift shop. And i'm not just talking MK or DL, USF was like this, too.

Pandora, TSL, and Avengers Campus doesn't either look like it takes the "shopping mall" approach, butnone of those lands are great, either. Pandora is the closest thing in that bunch, and it only has two rides, one which isa fine step up from Soarin, and another which is just a big WTF.

Idk, I feel like i've sort of lost track of my point and I started rambling a bit, but I just think that Universal will come to regret theming these lands so tightly to IPs, especially ones like HTTYD and Fantastic Beasts. HTTYD has never been as popular as some other Dreamworks properties here in the states and FB has sort of... never been all that popular. People only went to see the first one out of curiosity.

Sort of agree, I miss the days of "grab bag" lands like MSHI and Seuss. While I believe (some) Dreamworks properties deserve more respect--HTTYD being one of them--that format might've worked better in this case. I'm with you in not giving two cruds about FB, but if rumors are to be believed, the WW land will be at least half Potter.

The problem with any Avengers land is unless you are building Stark/Avengers tower and maybe something out of Wakanda or Asgard, the MCU doesn't really have any "Iconic" locations. It's sort of all over the place.

I agree LOTR would be tough to translate to a land because what's the ride?

Y'know, I think LOTR would've worked best with the same format of Pandora, to the point where I wish we had gotten it instead of Pandora. Instead of riding on a mountain banshee, you ride on an eagle across Middle Earth.
 
But Nintendo and Dragons will be of similar structure. Plus IOA had lands open with two rides (Toon); an e-ticket, a show, and a D-ticket walkthrough (Lost Continent); kids rides (Seuss), etc.

I'm suggesting we shouldn't jump to conclusions here when the park hasn't even gone vertical yet.
I'm not jumping to any conclusions, just expressing some potential concerns. SNW, once DK comes along with it, looks like it will be a very nice land. HTTYD will probably be fine, it seems to have a lot going on and it's got dragons, so i'm not as worried about the movies not being overly popular as I am with Fantastic Beasts. I don't think i'll be feeling confident in that land until i'm in it and I can form a first hand opinion. To me it just seems like a bad idea long-term, but we'll see, I guess.
 
  • Like
Reactions: SeventyOne
Just to chime in here, I think the opening lineup is shaking up to just as strong, if not stronger, than IOA. And I was blown away by the attractions when that opened. I never cared about Spider-Man when I first ride that. Had no clue who any of the bad guys were. And it instantly became my favorite ride. single IP lands don’t mean much as long as you’re having fun.

Also, it’s still early and things can and will change. Even some things that have already been permitted. And permits don’t tell us diddly about the indoor attractions.
 
Alicia makes a good point. When California Adventure opened it was a disaster, but over time it has become a solid park. I think Epic Universe will be a good park.

Just to chime in here, I think the opening lineup is shaking up to just as strong, if not stronger, than IOA. And I was blown away by the attractions when that opened. I never cared about Spider-Man when I first ride that. Had no clue who any of the bad guys were. And it instantly became my favorite ride. single IP lands don’t mean much as long as you’re having fun.

Also, it’s still early and things can and will change. Even some things that have already been permitted. And permits don’t tell us diddly about the indoor attractions.
 
Just to chime in here, I think the opening lineup is shaking up to just as strong, if not stronger, than IOA. And I was blown away by the attractions when that opened. I never cared about Spider-Man when I first ride that. Had no clue who any of the bad guys were. And it instantly became my favorite ride. single IP lands don’t mean much as long as you’re having fun.

Also, it’s still early and things can and will change. Even some things that have already been permitted. And permits don’t tell us diddly about the indoor attractions.

While I think this is all extremely fair, there's a bit of a difference between not being sold on an attraction's theme and not being sold on an attraction's underlying approach or ride type. There is nothing I could hear about a VR ride that would get me interested in it, for example. And I can't ride a coaster with inversions. So that's already two significant attractions that are off the list for me. Toss out the flat rides, and I'm not left with a large lineup.

That doesn't mean I think the park is shaping up to be bad! It just means there's not going to be as much for me to do there as other parks in the area.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Coolbfitz
But Nintendo and Dragons will be of similar structure. Plus IOA had lands open with two rides (Toon); an e-ticket, a show, and a D-ticket walkthrough (Lost Continent); kids rides (Seuss), etc.

I'm suggesting we shouldn't jump to conclusions here when the park hasn't even gone vertical yet.



Define "original".
I would define an original land as: a land based on a generic theme not tied to an IP. So Fantasyland, New York at USF, Sunset Boulevard, etc.
 
Just to chime in here, I think the opening lineup is shaking up to just as strong, if not stronger, than IOA. And I was blown away by the attractions when that opened. I never cared about Spider-Man when I first ride that. Had no clue who any of the bad guys were. And it instantly became my favorite ride. single IP lands don’t mean much as long as you’re having fun.

Also, it’s still early and things can and will change. Even some things that have already been permitted. And permits don’t tell us diddly about the indoor attractions.

Yup, that’s the impression I’m getting.

I think the weakest link is Potter and given how good everything they’ve done has been and what strict rules they’re under, that says a lot for the rest of the lands.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Alicia
While I think this is all extremely fair, there's a bit of a difference between not being sold on an attraction's theme and not being sold on an attraction's underlying approach or ride type. There is nothing I could hear about a VR ride that would get me interested in it, for example. And I can't ride a coaster with inversions. So that's already two significant attractions that are off the list for me. Toss out the flat rides, and I'm not left with a large lineup.

That doesn't mean I think the park is shaping up to be bad! It just means there's not going to be as much for me to do there as other parks in the area.

I have very complicated feelings on EU. Completely agree about VR. I'm one of the biggest advocates there is for larger coasters, BUT I do tend to like variety in them. I feel like the racing coasters and the HTTYD coaster are a bit too similar to VC and Hagrid’s, respectively. I do realize they’re in a bit of a bind with the SW parks having nearly every type of coaster model covered. Then there’s the Monsters ride, and will it be to FJ what TF is to Spidey (which is why I like to pretend TF doesn’t exist in Orlando)? Speaking of which, I also hope the Ministry ride isn’t just another Spidey vehicle. Alicia said it was going to be a trackless but that they went back to the drawing board even right before the pandemic, so who knows. And then Mario Kart and MIB are kind of similar too.

Basically, I could see it being the best park in FL, but I could also see it making the existing parks a bit...obsolete.
 
Then there’s the Monsters ride, and will it be to FJ what TF is to Spidey (which is why I like to pretend TF doesn’t exist in Orlando)?

My hope is that the Monsters' lack of (or minimal) simulator moments will keep it feeling distinct from Forbidden Journey.

An emphasis on the largeness of sets would also nicely complement FJ's more claustrophobic and confined feeling.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.